Why is this "The greatest country on earth"?

[Spartytruth]

Originally Posted by Compound

Just like how Obama can't possibly know what is best for me, I can't possible know what is best for you or your sister. Do I know you? Do I know your income level? Do I know your expenses? Do I know what resources you have? Do I know about what kind of charities may be able to help when something unfortunate like what happened to your sister happens?

Unlike the elitist snobs in Washington, I don't claim to have magical solutions for all of life's problems. But what I do know is that just because someone has medical bills that they can not pay does not mean that another person should pay those bills BY FORCE. Do you not understand the concept of stealing?

I think there are MANY things we can do to reduce the cost of health insurance while still protecting private property rights. I also think that you are a classic example of the grass is always greener on the other side. You think government health care will be so great, but I'll bet if your sister actually had to deal with that you wouldn't be loving them so much.

How do you justify keeping Medicare with this philosohy?

Why should people over 65 get this care but not the rest of the population?

[Compound]

Originally Posted by Spartytruth

How do you justify keeping Medicare with this philosohy?

Why should people over 65 get this care but not the rest of the population?

When did I say that medicare is a good program?

[Green Cheesiest™]

Originally Posted by Compound

Just like how Obama can't possibly know what is best for me, I can't possible know what is best for you or your sister. Do I know you? Do I know your income level? Do I know your expenses? Do I know what resources you have? Do I know about what kind of charities may be able to help when something unfortunate like what happened to your sister happens?

So should people rely mostly on charities as a source of help for them defray costs of treatment?

Unlike the elitist snobs in Washington, I don't claim to have magical solutions for all of life's problems. But what I do know is that just because someone has medical bills that they can not pay does not mean that another person should pay those bills BY FORCE. Do you not understand the concept of stealing?

Did you NOT read the part where I said she cut costs where should could and tried to find an individual plan, but no one would cover her? I never said I wanted someone else to pay for it. I want people like her to be able to get coverage like anyone else and not be denied. People already pay by force every time someone who is uninsured walks into an ER. And that includes you.

Unlike people who think the sick just sit on their ass and lie about how sick they, some people actually try to be proactive and cut costs and do whatever they can to pay their bills. Not everyone is an irresponsible jackass.

Please read my post again. I said if I got sick I would never expect anyone to foot the bill, but I would expect to be able to find a health care plan that would help to defray the cost. To some people like my sister, have a condition automatically rules them out of being able to pay for a plan, because no plan will take them.

I think there are MANY things we can do to reduce the cost of health insurance while still protecting private property rights. I also think that you are a classic example of the grass is always greener on the other side. You think government health care will be so great, but I'll bet if your sister actually had to deal with that you wouldn't be loving them so much.

She did deal with government health care.....SCHIP and Medicaid many times. I never said that public option would be the best, I never said that Medicaid was awesome. They are terrible...did you miss the part of my post about SSDI? Its all a joke, just like SS. Medicaid is a total joke for people who have nothing else.

All I said is that I wish people like my sister would be able to get health insurance themselves. She was denied coverage both privately and by government provided care.

So both forms of HC suck for people like her.

The grass is not always greener on the other side. Look at evidence from Europe. But for every person who says they could have been treated better or were rationed care by NHS.....there is someone here who has been treated poorly or had to ration care because of insurance problems here.

[Krazykyle]

Rationing of care happens now, and it will happen if the government takes over. The difference will simply be that people who have very good coverage now will lose some of the benefits they currently enjoy while those with nothing will have exponentially greater care.

Green. No matter what health plan is implemented is going to cover all the costs of care for people with Cystic Fibrosis, it is chronic and the costs for proper care are outrageous. I am sorry, but that is the truth, it is a burden that people with chronic conditions must bear, but they must accept that unless they have the personal finances to cover all medical costs, it is not economically feasible for society to cover all chronic conditions to the fullest medical extent.

[Green Cheesiest™]

Originally Posted by Krazykyle

Rationing of care happens now, and it will happen if the government takes over. The difference will simply be that people who have very good coverage now will lose some of the benefits they currently enjoy while those with nothing will have exponentially greater care.

Green. No matter what health plan is implemented is going to cover all the costs of care for people with Cystic Fibrosis, it is chronic and the costs for proper care are outrageous. I am sorry, but that is the truth, it is a burden that people with chronic conditions must bear, but they must accept that unless they have the personal finances to cover all medical costs, it is not economically feasible for society to cover all chronic conditions to the fullest medical extent.

Then you need to prepare yourself to look in the mirror one day and say "I am sick, I am a waste of resources, I am accepting the fact that I cannot afford my own care, and since I am not insurable now, I am too high of a risk to be taken care of", if in fact you develop a chronic condition. And be prepared to look into your own palliative care, or subsistence care for the things you may be able to afford here and there.

Because that is what you are asking people to do. And I hope you will be willing to do it, since you are telling me the truth.

[Krazykyle]

Originally Posted by Green Cheesiest™

Then you need to prepare yourself to look in the mirror one day and say "I am sick, I am a waste of resources, I am accepting the fact that I cannot afford my own care, and since I am not insurable now, I am too high of a risk to be taken care of", if in fact you develop a chronic condition. And be prepared to look into your own palliative care, or subsistence care for the things you may be able to afford here and there.

Because that is what you are asking people to do. And I hope you will be willing to do it, since you are telling me the truth.

I am? That is the nature of life, we don't live forever. The situation you described happens to literally every person who dies. Sometimes bad things happen to us (Inevitably bad health things) and there is just nothing that can be done within the means available.

What is your ideal situation? I have noted that many times your posts allude to "affordable health care for all". That is a great statement and all, but you also imply the belief that no matter what someone's condition is that every last resource should be exhausted to manage that condition, and on a population level that is simply not possible for everybody. It is not a personal attack, but you need to realize that at some point the cost of care outweighs the return, it will happen for me, it will happen for you as well. It's not morbid to state that, it is just the way it is. We must however work with our limited resources to maximize the health outcomes while utilizing the least amount of resources, and sadly someone is going to lose out. You don't seem to understand that or you refuse to.

[Green Cheesiest™]

Originally Posted by Krazykyle

I am? That is the nature of life, we don't live forever. The situation you described happens to literally every person who dies. Sometimes bad things happen to us (Inevitably bad health things) and there is just nothing that can be done within the means available.

What is your ideal situation? I have noted that many times your posts allude to "affordable health care for all". That is a great statement and all, but you also imply the belief that no matter what someone's condition is that every last resource should be exhausted to manage that condition, and on a population level that is simply not possible for everybody. It is not a personal attack, but you need to realize that at some point the cost of care outweighs the return, it will happen for me, it will happen for you as well. It's not morbid to state that, it is just the way it is. We must however work with our limited resources to maximize the health outcomes while utilizing the least amount of resources, and sadly someone is going to lose out. You don't seem to understand that or you refuse to.

I understand that sometimes that is the way it is, and this is very much the case when people are older and are dying. But what about a situation, say a child with cerebral palsy. So do we maximize their outcome, or should there be guidelines stating which conditions will be allowed to use the limited resources and which ones don't? Do the insurance companies get to create the guidelines or the AMA? Because as adults, we can make a decision like this. But children can't.

Where do we draw the line with our resource allocation and our moral obligation?

In the shortened sense, it seems that you are saying people die as a result of not having coverage, and that's okay. Therefore if a child has cerebral palsy, and is denied coverage, then they can receive the treatment they can pay for, and if there are treatments they can't afford, and that issue results in their death, then that is an acceptable outcome. Agree or disagree?

[Krazykyle]

Originally Posted by Green Cheesiest™

I understand that sometimes that is the way it is, and this is very much the case when people are older and are dying. But what about a situation, say a child with cerebral palsy. So do we maximize their outcome, or should there be guidelines stating which conditions will be allowed to use the limited resources and which ones don't? Do the insurance companies get to create the guidelines or the AMA? Because as adults, we can make a decision like this. But children can't.

Where do we draw the line with our resource allocation and our moral obligation?

In the shortened sense, it seems that you are saying people die as a result of not having coverage, and that's okay. Therefore if a child has cerebral palsy, and is denied coverage, then they can receive the treatment they can pay for, and if there are treatments they can't afford, and that issue results in their death, then that is an acceptable outcome. Agree or disagree?

Those are the questions we are addressing in the healthcare debate currently. I do no not have the answers, because there is not a simple answer. The truth is if we do adjust to a public option, some chronic conditions are not going to be covered and that will be that unless you have personal funds to cover it. There is just not enough for everybody.

Do I think it is good people will die as a result of not having coverage? No

But it is going to happen, whether the government runs the system or whether insurance companies run the system. If you believe that the government is going to be more just in resource allocation than we disagree, because I believe they will ration care even further to keep costs low and that in the end those people who are productive members of society are going to bear an unfair burden for the care of others.